This caller, the only pro-Israel caller of the day, was cutoff in mid sentence after only 25 seconds. It is typical for C-SPAN to give short shrift and cutoff to pro-Israel callers while indulging others. The very next caller, Joe, was allowed to rant at length for 97 seconds including ridiculing the religion, Mormonism, of presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Neither host nor guest challenged the ridiculing  nor did they reply at all to Sharon's call.

Caller: "Hi, thank you for speaking with me. You know, only good things come from God and God is not a god of destruction. I don't believe the storm is any kind of judgment or anything like that. In fact it's interesting  Hosea [contained in the Hebrew Bible] says that Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. The President [Obama] would not meet with Israel. Those who bless Israel shall be blessed and [from the first part of Genesis 12.3, the first book of the Bible] ..."

Host: "This is Ray from Clinton, Iowa. Debbie [a Romney supporter] from Ohio is on as well. What did you think of the debate?"

Caller Ray: "Well, I thought that Mitt Romney showed that he  on the foreign policy, the only issue he really has is  he talks about unwavering support for Israel. Other than that, the last two minutes (indistinct). He has been a hawk about what he would do in Iran and what he would do in Iraq and Syria. We see him, of course, last night, flip-flop on that big time. I think he has no policy there. I don't believe in unwavering support for Israel because most people believe that the Middle East is dictated by what we do with Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons. Nobody else does. So, I think on balance..."

Host (interrupting): "Is foreign policy important to you ?"

Caller Ray: "Very important. I'm a veteran and I was in the Navy  and I thought it was sort of funny last night  funny but sad  Mitt Romney did not understand that we started changing after the Vietnam  and I'm a Vietnam era veteran. I had three tours and I happen to know a little about the Navy and we got away from that. We're not going to drop atomic bombs hopefully on anybody anymore. The Navy is smaller, a lot more efficient. We need the Special Forces. We started it with John F. Kennedy. He knew it. We started being a more elite  able to attack these problems all over the world and that is what we doing and we have to continue to do. I don't think we're going to be in a war with Russia."

(Caller Debbie criticized President Obama for not visiting Israel during his latest Middle East trip; she devoted most of her time to arguing against "Obamacare").

Frequent caller lies about her own name and obsessively defames Israel

Unchallenged by host Casey, this anti-Israel obsessive caller, during her 2.5 minute rant, freely misinformed viewers on Israel's policies and actions and conflict with Iran. The caller  invariably indulged by C-SPAN in her numerous calls  lies about Israel and lies about her own name. Her easily recognized distinct voice has been heard on Washington Journal variously identifying herself as "Ann," "Mary," "Rebecca," "Patricia," "Jackie," "Kay," "Kate," as well as "Kathleen." She rails against Israel and often U.S. foreign policy in each of her calls, often violating C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule. Her most recent calls: Ann (click here to listen) May 22, 2012 (same host Libby Casey); Kathleen (click here to listen) March 1, 2012; Mary (click here to listen) Feb. 24, 2012; Rebecca (click here to listen) Jan. 15, 2012; Kathleen (click here to listen) Jan. 13, 2012; Jackie (click here to listen) Jan. 9, 2012; and Ann, Jan. 8, 2012.

Caller: "President Obama and Vice President Biden are coming to Ohio tomorrow, so we are all really excited, but I would like to see  I hope I get as much time as some of the other wonderful people on your program  but I'd like to see both of them focus on the facts in regards to, for instance, Iran. I follow what former Bush administration officials ... and they continue to point out that Iran has the right  the legal right  enrich uranium up to 20 percent for peaceful purposes and there is no hard evidence that says they are developing nuclear weapons. Well then, the argument is always the capacity. Well, again, they have a right to enrich uranium as signatories to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. So, as Vice President Biden pointed out, all of this loose talk about Iran over the last seven years is extremely dangerous. As he pointed out to Congressman Ryan, do we want another war with Iran? Iran has never threatened us and never really threatened Israel. Israel has threatened Iran and Israel has nuclear weapons. So, I'd love both of them to talk about  which won't happen  Iran's right to enrich uranium  the legal right  Israel's unwillingness to sign the NPT while having a couple of hundred nuclear warheads. So, I hope they focus on the facts. Now, on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I think that President Bush 41, he and James Baker linked foreign aid to Israel to their continued expansion of illegal settlements. I know they will not, but I wish they would talk about the Israel's continued expansion of illegal settlements."

Caller: I was very surprised when Romney put [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu in the chain of command. It disappoints me. I thought Eisenhower had it right: American soldiers are American soldiers. No foreign enemy is going to take my grandkids in any war. We have stood there from Beirut, where we were abandoned on the left flank -- because my brother-in-law's son was killed there when the military could not have a chain of command. It's outrageous. Can you imagine (indistinct) come out of there. I think just the idea of all these peace arrangements that are kicked in the butt from (indistinct) and he wants to put Netanyahu in the chain of command.

Guest: I suspect that Romney will make an argument tonight that Obama has failed spectacularly on the Israel-Palestine issue and will do effectively what our caller has been suggesting, which is to say that Obama has abandoned America's greatest ally in the region, namely Israel. This has become a real red-meat issue because Pro-Israel supporters in the United States, both Jewish and non-Jewish, many of them now have blamed Obama for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. It's also significant that a lot of these voters live in key battleground states like Florida. In fact, if you look at the President's record on Israel and Palestine, I think it's been pretty solid. He's been very supportive of Israel. He has been a critical friend at times but history shows that  that is the best role for America to play. But Romney will attack him for daring to venture even constructive criticism of Israel. The question would then be how much that (indistinct). Fortunately this vote is not being taken in Israel, a country I returned from three days ago where Obama is very unpopular. But it [the vote] would be taken in the United States where Israel isn't a critical issue in any more than in a few battleground States. It is an open question how much foreign policy will matter to most voters at all.

Repeat anti-Israel caller Doug's comment is a distortion (as pointed out by guest Matthew Lee) in charging that any Israeli and/or United States preemptive attack in the absence of a supporting U.N. resolution on Iran's nuclear facilities would constitute a war crime. Pertaining to Geneva Conventions under the United Nations Charter prohibiting an attack on another country, an exception is provided for a nation preempting an immanent attack which would constitute an existential danger to itself. This could certainly be the case in which Iran, conducting armed attacks on Israel through its terrorist allies Hamas and Hizbullah and repeatedly threatening to destroy Israel, is developing nuclear weapons.

Caller: Romney seems more enthusiastic about bombing Iran at the behest of the Israelis. It is, however, a war crime under Geneva [Conventions] to attack another country without a United Nations Security Council Chapter VII resolution. I'd like to remind you that George Bush was recently advised not to travel to Switzerland because of the laws of universal jurisdiction. I would just like this to see this question (indistinct) in the Monday night debate. Thanks a lot. Goodbye.

LEE: It would be an interesting question to hear what the candidates have to say on this -- what their responses would be. I would point out it is not always a violation of international law to invade or attack a company without a Chapter VII resolution. There is the universal right of self-defense. But I remind the caller that if one country invades the other, while that might not be legal, the country that is fighting back is not in violation of anything.

"Ed from Donora, Pennsylvania," evidently a proponent of blame-the-Jews-for-everything, mentions the old antisemitic canard about Jewish money and influence  and grossly distorts the power of the so-called "Israeli lobby" but among the most effective of Israel's supporters  if not the most effective  is the American Christian evangelical community.

Caller: "Both parties are owned totally by the Israeli lobby including billionaires like Saban who bought the Democratic Party about ten years ago."

BRAWNER (interrupting): "And why do you think that? What evidence do you have of that?"

Caller: "Well, the way they vote. The fact that two years ago, when [Israel's Prime Minister] Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress, joint session, he got 29 standing ovations. They worship him because that ..." [Either the caller's connection failed or cutoff occurred, it's not clear which].

BRAWNER: "Okay Ed, got your point."

HARRISON: "We've always supported Israel and believed Israel was our ally and I anticipate we always will believe in that."

Neither host nor guest, a prominently placed journalist, challenges the caller's egregious falsehood concerning events in Lebanon in 1982. This is par for the course for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, on which anti-Israel and anti-Jewish charges routinely go unchallenged.

Caller: "I've studied foreign policy for awhile for a long time now. I've gone to international (indistinct) and what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing are two different things. What I see on TV are false flags, misinformation and stuff like that. I also served in the military. I went in 1982. I was just in New Haven, Connecticut, with my good friend ... who runs a website called [name of an anti-Israel propaganda Website]. He is well-known. He interviews all kinds of key players. And I was down there  celebrating  not celebrating  making people aware of the massacre that happened in Beirut in 1982 where IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] soldiers went up and murdered 7000 people, cutting their ears off; stole their jewelry  Palestinian refugees. So, I don't want to hear anything about this. This is really making me feel unsafe..."

Host (interrupting): "What makes you feel unsafe?"

Caller: "Who you interview are neocons. I never get a perspective of a peaceful loving person; always somebody with a motive."

Host: "Okay. Susan Glasser is the editor in chief of Foreign Policy' magazine. She's not a neocon, but he [the caller] brings up the idea of peace and wanting to see more peace, a message of peace throughout the world  coming out of the president's mouth, out of Mitt Romney's mouth. Are we hearing that?"

GLASSER: "That, I think, is an important thing. If you step back, and look at rhetoric in election years, they tend to be fairly testosterone-filled when it comes to what the image in the world is that we want to project and frankly we were talking about (indistinct). Think about the Obama of 2008. Would you have been surprised? I certainly was to see that a few years later he's running on a campaign where he's reported to personally oversee the making and (indistinct) of a kill list. We have assassinated American citizens inside Yemen  the al-Qaeda affiliated cleric, for example. We waged a very targeted and lethal drone war in Pakistan and drug war in Afghanistan.

Obama has touted the targeting of Osama bin Laden as one of the major features of his foreign policy record. So, he is not exactly a pacifist. We'll have on Friday, the annual awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. Remember when Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize and gave a surprising  to many  speech when he talked about the reasons for war in this modern day and age. I think it suggests that, broadly speaking, Americans are a fairly militaristic people, and those are the kinds of words you're hearing even more so from Mitt Romney on the campaign trail."

NOTE: Neither host nor guest challenges the obvious falsehoods uttered by the caller in reference to massacres in Beirut in 1982. The caller alleges that "IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers went up and murdered 7000 people, cutting their ears off " But as is well-known, members of the Lebanese Christian Phalange militia killed an estimated 400 to 700 people in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee districts in Beirut. The Phalangists were then allied with Israel, which had besieged Beirut after invading Lebanon to end attacks by Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorists based there. The Phalange acted in retribution for the assassination of Lebanese Christian President-elect Bashir Gemayel and massacres of Lebanese Christians by PLO forces.

Israeli troops did not enter Sabra or Shatila or participate in the killings, but Ariel Sharon, then Israel's defense minister, resigned after Israel's Kahan Commission investigated and found him indirectly responsible "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge." Two other senior Israeli officials also were cited for failing to properly anticipate the violence. But the commission found no direct Israeli responsibility for the killings, and explicitly noted that those in the area "did not form the impression, from what they saw and heard, that a massacre of hundreds of people was taking place."

The failure to challenge wildly exaggerated misinformation from an anti-Israel caller is typical of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, as documented by CAMERA over a period of years. But it also reflects badly on Foreign Policy magazine and guest Glasser, who is outranked at the magazine only by its publisher and CEO. Not only is Glasser completely silent on the "Israeli massacre" slander, she takes seriously the obviously unhinged caller's insinuations about shadowy, cold-blooded "neo-cons"  neo-conservatives, the ideological school that supported an active anti-Soviet U.S. foreign policy late in the Cold War and today sees Islamic extremism as a global threat that should be confronted vigorously. Instead of challenging the caller's errors and fringe sources, she indulges in superficial speculation about "testosterone-filled" presidential campaign rhetoric. Foreign Policy magazine proudly proclaims that "During her [Glasser's] tenure, the magazine has won numerous awards for its innovative coverage ..." Maybe, but it has too often failed its journalistic responsibilities, as in this case and in other situations including those documented by CAMERA (here and here).

Washington Journal, C-SPAN's daily public affairs and call-in show, with millions of viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers), has been given a free pass for too many years on the failure of its hosts to challenge the prejudiced allegations of antisemitic, anti-Zionist callers (or the occasional guest). C-SPAN's major patrons include Comcast, the largest cable television provider in the country, Time Warner and DirecTV. Neil Smit (Neil_Smit@cable.comcast.com) is President of Comcast Cable and most prominent member of C-SPAN's five-member board of directors executive committee. Another prominent member of this five-member group is Glenn Britt (glenn.britt@timewarnercable.com), Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Cable. Second only to Comcast among television providers in terms of number of customers is satellite television provider DirecTV whose CEO is Michael White (mdwhite@directv.com). Courteous, concise e-mails should urge Comcast, Time Warner Cable and DirecTV to make clear to C-SPAN executives that Washington Journal must not continue providing a platform to haters of Jews and the Jewish state. C-SPAN's chief executives are Susan Swain (sswain@c-span.org) and Rob Kennedy (rkennedy@c-span.org).

Both host and guest shamefully fail to challenge or interrupt the caller's lengthy, ignorant, untruthful anti-Jewish rant. But this is par for the course for C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

Caller: "I wanted to say that I really don't like this domination of  and this is what my opinion is  I feel like what's going on  I feel like that when we are defend Israel; we are defending what we call the 'divine people.' I don't believe that has ever been a belief in religion. But (indistinct) I'm going to say too, the Christian part of [President] Barack Obama' s history  they made denounce that and then they're saying he's a Muslim. I believe he's a Christian. I've been to his church and I believe that's what he believes in.

I'm a Christian and I converted to Islam because I felt for woman it was more protective because of their traditional roles of father and mother in the home. The mother is allowed to be at home with the protection of the father. I thought that was a very positive situation for democracy; it takes women enough off of welfare, and we do not have that gang situation  that prison situation that we would have here.

But Israel, I do not think we should follow their lead because I think the world looks at how Americans get along with each other, not at how Israel gets along with America. And Israel's approach in their religion is an eye for an eye.' They do not follow the Christian approach. So, when things happen to them in the international world, I feel they follow eye for an eye.' America doesn't follow that and I believe there's going to be a problem for Americans in the future and we need to make our own decisions even if Israel says they're going to withdraw their support from us and all of these things because I think they think they are a divine people.' I think that's religious falsehood and I feel that Americans do not have to follow that. Abraham was for all people and he was for all people's children to survive in this world and he never said the Jewish people were better than any other race on the Earth."

GLASSER: "Well, there's a lot of history  no question there  that comes into play when we're talking about the Middle East, and the question of U.S. support for Israel has often been politicized as part of this campaign. But, I think it's important to remember that there actually is a pretty broad political consensus across the two parties in the United States when it comes to supporting Israel, and in particular a determination to come up with a unified approach to the challenge of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Why are we united  Democrats and Republicans  in that? Because the Iranians have said that they wished to wipe Israel from the face of the map, and for the Israelis that is as close to an existential threat as there is  threatening the very existence of the Jewish state in the Middle East. The bottom line is that it is a tough neighborhood that they live in, but this is a threat of magnitude that is far greater than anything they have faced before.

You will not really see any significant difference between leading Democrats and Republicans when it comes to that. Now, of course there is a very conservative leader in Israel  Benjamin Netanyahu  right now. He grew up in the United States. He has said he was born speaking Republican. Clearly, he is much closer politically to the Republicans in the United States and Romney has vowed to let there be no daylight between the position of Israel and that of the United States, particularly when it comes to a military strike on those Iranian facilities. Where you have a difference, I think, is really on the question of tactics. What's the most effective way; what will you get by a military strike? What if you undertake a military strike and it leads to a broader war in the Middle East? What if it leads only to putting off the Iranian nuclear program by a year or two? What have you really accomplished? How much does that set back Israel's position in the world in doing so and of course the position of the United states as well? Those are the factors that are being debated very vigorously behind closed doors when it comes to the threats. But in a broad sense, the Democrats and Republicans will not shift away from that special relationship between Israel and the United States."

Caller : "Yes, I definitely agree with the lady talking about the foreign policy issue because I think Mitt Romney is a opportunist. He went overseas and basically disrespected all of our allies. He kisses up to [Israel's Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu on foreign policy. I think Obama is actually steadfast. He talked to Benjamin Netanyahu on the phone for hours. So, it's not like he has been dodging him. He does not kiss up to foreign leaders. He talks to them like a leader. Just like in the debate, Obama held his head up high and did not have his head down did like everybody said he did. As far as the media, I don' t think the real voters actually thought that. I think a lot of people just followed what the media was saying as far as what he was talking about. I mean what the media was talking about when they said Obama did not hold his head up high. I think he was very presidential. I think he was real calm. I think Mitt Romney is desperate..."

Host: "We will hear the candidates debate on policy in the coming weeks. Can you reflect on the earlier part of what he was saying?"

Guest: "I think Romney did make a trip this summer to Europe and Israel. He went to London where he famously criticized the preparations for the London Olympics games. He went to Poland. He went to Israel. Democrats have tried to emphasize what they see as Romney's pension for gaffes. He's not comfortable with the subject of foreign policy and has seemed undiplomatic in foreign affairs initially. You see a somewhat inconsistent critique when it comes to Romney and what the Democrats are saying about him. They call him gaffe prone and flip-floping. On the other hand, they say there' s no real difference between him and Obama on major issues that count. Yet they suggest he' s going to be the second coming of the first Bush administration. I think you have almost every possible critique being made about Mitt Romney right now when it comes to foreign policy, in part because his views are still somewhat unknown and it' s not clear what kind of foreign-policy president he would be."

Leon from Washington, D.C. is another in the chain of Washington Journal anti-Israel callers making patently false accusations (virtually never challenged by Journal hosts) against the Jewish state, along with other empty but unchallenged charges.

Caller: Question for Obama would be: Why doesn't he say anything or do anything about the disparities of the jail population being more minorities, blacks, than anything else in this country? And why doesn't he speak out about reparations for black people. All the nationalities got reparations when mistreated by this country but black folks. And we sit in this country and suffer and be the first in all atrocities and negative-ism in this country and Obama doesn't say anything and he's African-American, like it or not.

And for Mr. Romney, I want to know why we give Israel so much money and they give us nothing in return and they occupy a nation  they occupy Palestine. They just like South Africa during apartheid. These questions got to be answered. Questions about 9/11, that hasn't been answered yet. Obama's taken the blame for 9/11 and no one has come to his defense. And no one even came up with race (indistinct) and no one came up with answers. So, we need a whole lot of questions answered. Thank you.

NOTE: The caller makes one unsubstantiated accusation after another, and the C-SPAN host lets him ramble uninterrupted. Is there an ethnic or racial disparity in U.S. prison populations not related to crimes committed and convictions won? Neither caller nor host specify. The caller implies a bias in prison sentences against blacks but neither he nor the host point out that African-Americans are more likely to be the victims of crimes committed disproportionately by other African-Americans. "All nationalities got reparations when mistreated by this country but blacks"? Since that never occurred, why doesn't the Washington Journal host ask "Which ones and when?"

Then the caller sinks into 9/11 "truther" conspiracy claims: "Questions about 9/11, that hasn't been answered yet"? After detailed and widely reported congressional and independent commissions and numerous journalistic reviews the caller echoes crank claims insisting that the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon haven't been investigated properly. The C-SPAN host says nothing. The caller implies  without evidence  that President Obama somehow has been blamed. Again, no rebuttal from the host.

Then comes the predictable "Israel-as-apartheid-South-Africa" charge, even though Palestinian Arabs under Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip achieved higher standards of living than Arabs in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Yemen, according to a 2005 U.N. report. Likewise, the insinuation that Jews returning to their ancient land and reestablishing a sovereign state in part of it occupied a non-existent country called "Palestine" goes uncontradicted. Will C-SPAN air any anti-Israel smear, no matter how unsupported? So far, the answer appears to be yes.

Guest: AMY GOODMAN, host and executive producer of radio program Democracy Now aired daily on the five-station fringe-leftist Pacifica network and various community and college radio stations; co-author of a new book, The Silenced Majority: Stories of Occupation, Resistance and Hope.

Topic: The guest's new book.

Amy Goodman is notorious for her anti-Israel views, so much so that she has been repudiated by the leading Israeli left-wing party, Meretz, that is consistently critical of Israel's policies towards the Arab world.

Goodman in a 2008 broadcast, presented as authentic the false and inflammatory claims of a well-known Palestinian propagandist, Mohammed Omer. Omer, a regular contributor to radical or fringe publications and radio stations, asserted to Goodman and others that he had been repeatedly tortured in Israel by Israeli authorities but his numerous claims are full of contradictions and discrepancies. Goodman personifies radical Pacifica radio which is chronically skewed against Israel. For example, Goodman's New York Pacifica radio station WBAI in June 2012 aired Israel-hating British politician George Galloway's whopper about why Albert Einstein turned down an offer to become the first president of Israel.

HARLESTON: Let's take a look at another tweet that we've gotten  this one from Monty1041 (Labban): Does occupation (in quotes) in the title [of the guest's book] include occupation of the West Bank?'

GOODMAN: It is stories of uprising, occupations, resistance, and hope. It's interesting, there are two kinds of occupations. You have the occupation encampments all over this country. We just passed the first anniversary. And then, yes, you have occupations like you have in the West Bank and Gaza [the Gaza Strip is run by the radical Islamist Hamas organization. Hamas has been accused repeatedly by human rights groups of oppressing the Arabs of Gaza. Day-to-day affairs of West Bank Arabs are administered by the Palestinian Authority, lead by the Fatah movement. It too has been accused repeatedly of human rights violations. Goodman rarely deals with such inconvenient realities when it comes to Israel and, as usual, the Washington Journal host does not challenge an anti-Israel guest]. This is extremely serious and it must be resolved. I was just thinking a little about as we traveled the country a few weeks ago, actually during the Republican convention, we had on Democracy Now, that week, Cindy and Craig Corrie. We had them on from Haifa [Israel].

They are the mother and father of Rachel Corrie. She was a young American peace activist who, a few years ago, left Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington to spend some time in Gaza, in the occupied territories. She was deeply concerned about what was happening to Palestinians. A pharmacist (indistinct), a family she had come to know well, an Israeli military bulldozer which was made by Caterpillar in the United States, was coming up to the house and she was terrified that it would be bulldozed like so many Palestinian homes. She stood in front of it with one of those orange construction fluorescent vests with a bullhorn. As she tried, just by putting her body onthe line, to prevent the bulldozer from demolishing this house as so many houses have been demolished, the bulldozer ran over her and then crushed her again and killed her.

Her parents sued the Israeli military and they just lost and they are appealing this case. But yes, of course, it is a grave concern to people all over the world what is happening in occupied territories. This is a situation that must be resolved.

NOTE: Guest Goodman's response to the anti-Israel tweet focuses on a favorite anti-Israel propaganda story, the 2003 accidental death of anti-Israel, not "peace activist," college student Rachel Corrie. Goodman repeatedly misrepresents the case. Corrie was indoctrinated by the anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement, whose leaders have supported as complementary anti-Israel terrorism and non-violent efforts, like Corrie was engaged in when killed, to disrupt Israeli security operations in closed military areas, in this case part of Gaza used by terrorist for smuggling. Goodman ignores the results of Israeli investigations and the court ruling that the bulldozer driver, in a heavily screened cab to protect against rock and Molotov cocktail throwers, could not see Corrie, who had slipped behind a pile of rubble. A tragic accident had been converted by Israel-haters into propaganda.

And once again, a Washington Journal host utters not a word in response to an anti-Israel diatribe, whether by another in the chain of anti-Israel callers or by an occasional guest (as in this case). Either out of ignorance of a relatively high-profile news event  which should be disqualifying for the host  or willful silence, not even an obvious falsehood (that the Gaza Strip is occupied by Israel) is challenged by C-SPAN's moderator. As usual, when it comes to an anti-Israel slander, Washington Journal fails in its public affairs journalism. The program claims 28 million weekly viewers, but when the topic is Israel, it repeatedly misinforms them.

Washington Journal, C-SPAN's daily public affairs and call-in show, has been given a free pass for too many years on the failure of its hosts to challenge the prejudiced allegations of antisemitic, anti-Zionist callers (or the occasional guest). C-SPAN's major patrons include Comcast, the largest cable television provider in the country, Time Warner and DirecTV. Neil Smit (Neil_Smit@cable.comcast.com) is President of Comcast Cable and most prominent member of C-SPAN's five-member board of directors executive committee. Another prominent member of this five-member group is Glenn Britt (glenn.britt@timewarnercable.com), Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Cable.Second only to Comcast among television providers in terms of number of customers is satellite television provider DirecTV whose CEO is Michael White (mdwhite@directv.com). Courteous, concise e-mails should urge Comcast, Time Warner Cable and DirecTV to make clear to C-SPAN executives that Washington Journal must not continue providing a platform to haters of Jews and the Jewish state. C-SPAN's chief executives are Susan Swain (sswain@c-span.org) and Rob Kennedy(rkennedy@c-span.org).

"Jody from Reseda," frequent caller to Washington Journal, has obsessively conveyed anti-Israel misinformation and misidentified herself with 26 different names in her 38 calls monitored by CAMERA since Dec. 2008 in which her distinctive voice and intonation has been heard repeatedly blaming American foreign policy, Israel and its American supporters for all of America's problems. Her "blame the Jews for everything" reflex recalls the slogan in Nazi Germany that "the Jews are our misfortune." Her most recent call was on June 9, 2012 as "Rachel from Reseda, California" (click here to listen).

Host Orgel, either out of ignorance or willfulness, has aired this woman's bizarre, inflammatory views in the past. Orgel apparently was fooled by this same woman on Washington Journal twice only 22 hours apart in January 2010. She used two different names and two separate locations, saying virtually the same thing each time and in the same distinctive voice. Click here for a 3.5 minute video clip of Orgel indulging "Janet from Birmingham, Alabama on January 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM and then again on January 2 at 7:50 AM indulging "Carol from Scottsville, Arizona.

Caller: First I want to say that I am an independent and I used to be a Republican. I voted for Ron Paul and right afterward. I registered as an independent. I cannot morally vote for Romney, Obama, or anybody. Actually, Obama is a little better on foreign policy, but not really much because both are neocons. I am an independent now and I will be voting for Gary Johnson [former governor of New Mexico, Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election] in the election because foreign policy is the most important thing that is breaking this country. You know, they are both running for president for Netanyahu [prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanhayu]. Israel  it's not even a state. It is made up by a bunch of illegals that came in there and invaded Palestinians  the Jewish Palestine. This is ridiculous and they're all doing it and they're all catering to the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC.

ORGEL: "Let me jump in. You mentioned Gary Johnson. What is it about foreign policy that you know about Gary Johnson and what he brings to the table?"

Caller: He's a lot (indistinct). First of all, he will cut all foreign aid everywhere, putting America first. That is what gets me too. Everybody  even at the Democratic convention, I was watching it on TV  I could not stomach the Republican one after what they did, breaking all the rules, but the Democrats  Mayor Viaragosa is our Mayor (indistinct)  he stood up at the delegate vote for Jerusalem being the capital of Israel  and overwhelmingly they had to ask it again and again, but he had to cater to the lobby because of his political aspirations.

We got attacked on 9/11 because of our support for Israel. [Saudi] Prince Alwaleed [bin Talal] told Mayor Giuliani [mayor of New York [City at the time] that he'd give him ten thousand  ten billion dollars [Sic. Giuliani returned bin Talal's check for $10 million for disaster relief after al Qaeda's destruction of Manhattan's Twin Towers]  to fix New York and the Towers. And Giuliani in front of everyone gave it back to him because he said, they said if you change your foreign policy towards the Middle East, I will give it to you. [The mayor returned the money after the Saudi billionaire's implication that U.S. Middle East policy was a reason for the attack, saying, as CNN reported on Oct. 11, 2001, "there is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people."]

You know, the best place to get your news  really  to find out what's going on in foreign policy  and this is the subject  is Press TV [Iranian government English-language propaganda site], and Russia Today [an English-language operation funded, according to The Hill newspaper's Nov. 4, 2012 edition, by the Russian government]. You can go to my friend's page [names an antisemitic, anti-Israel Website]. There are a lot of other places you can look.

ORGEL: "That was Jody from California."

NOTE: Washington Journal's Orgel fails completely as a host. He doesn't question any of the multiple-identity repeat caller's erroneous claims or tendentious sources. He doesn't inform viewers that Press TV and RT (Russia Today) are propaganda arms of the Iranian and Russian governments, respectively. He fails to put Mayor Giuliani's rejection of the Saudi billionaire's putative donation in context. He lets stand the charge that American support for Israel caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks when al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's main objectives were the overthrow of "impious" Islamic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere and the reestablishment of the Sunni Muslim caliphate and the ouster of U.S. and other "Crusader" forces from Saudi Arabia. The conversion of American Christians to Islam and destruction of the Jewish state were secondary objectives.

Further, host Orgel does not question the caller's false claims that both the Democratic and Republican candidates for president were running on behalf of the Israeli prime minister or that they are both "neocons" (neo-conservative foreign policy interventionists). He also lets pass without rebuttal the allegation that Israel is not a state but "a bunch of illegals that invaded Palestine." Israel's modern pedigree is more settled than that of most Arab states, for example, since the British Mandate for Palestine was established by the League of Nations to facilitate recreation of the ancient Jewish homeland and continued by the United Nations. Instead, he indulges her rants and encourages her to continue. This segment amounts to a parody of public affairs broadcasting.

Typically, host Orgel accepts obviously outrageous falsehoods from the caller: Iran doesn't threaten Israel with destruction; Israel is a theocracy; the country of Palestine was wiped out. The average informed person knows these are lies.

Caller: I'm calling in on the Independent line but I am more of a liberal. As a liberal, I apply my beliefs liberally to all issues. And that sometimes finds you defending someone who is conservative, someone who is religious. When the Iranian president speaks about eliminating or wiping off the map, Israel, we must remember that one country was eliminated, one country was wiped out, and that country was Palestine. No one speaks to that. He does not speak about annihilating Jews or things of that sort. And I hate to defend him. Because like I said, he's conservative, he's religious. He is all the things that as a liberal I find abhorrent. But let's be fair, in trying to demonize especially when the issue is Israel, a theocracy in the Middle East that eliminated and wiped another country off the map, Palestine. It is only for people within the same religion. It is ridiculous. And his support comes from, you know, the same people who support the right here in America. Thank you.

Caller: I've got three things quick: how does the U.S. expect cooperation from China and Russia on Syria when every time there is a vote in the U.N. in condemning Israel  the atrocities that they commit  the U.S. vetoes that U.N. vote. I'd like to know  I don't remember  the Palestinians wanted uh uh  the Palestinians  what was it that they said to try to gain recently from the U.N. and it was vetoed by the U.S. and Israel? Statehood. The third point, Ahmadinejad  I heard he was misquoted on that statement that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map and what he was more trying to say was that Zionism was going to fall of its own um um uh volition.

Guest: I've paid very close attention to what Ahmadinejad has said since he came into power in 2007. He has said many times that Israel should be wiped off the map of the world and Iran's supreme leader has said the same thing. They have it out for Israel. They want to see Israel disappear. It is the obligation of the United States to protect Israel and of course we will do that. The second thing I want to say is that China and Russia have not been good friends of the Palestinians. They don't really care about the Palestinians. And despite our differences from time to time with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah [Fatah], the United States has been a very good friend of the Palestinians and we want to see a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. There should be an independent state for the Palestinians as well as a secure state for Israel. I think it is dangerous to say that the Chinese and Russians care very much  because they run cynical foreign policies.

In this segment about the United Nations role in world affairs, this is the first of five callers singling out mainly Israel for condemnation  without challenge by host Brawner (except for a mild challenge of this first caller).

Caller: "I think the role of the U.N. has become utterly bastardized because of the influences within the intrastructure of the United States i.e. the state of Israel. In order to understand this, all you have to do is go to the Mideast section of the U.S. State Department and you see almost an entirely Israeli presence in the State Department with photographs of Netanyahu and the Israeli flag up in our..."

In this segment about the United Nations role, this is the second of five callers singling out mainly Israel for condemnation  the last four without even the mild challenge host Brawner posed to the first anti-Israel viewer phoning in.

Caller: "I think it would be crazy to eliminate the U.N.. It tends to do a lot more good than (indistinct) many wars. I think our main problem is that Israel has 400 nuclear devices given to them by us and the most advanced bunker-busting bombs and they have the most advanced F-16's [fighter planes] from America. That's the major problem with the world. Thank you."

Host: "Okay."

NOTE: Whatever the size of Israel's purported nuclear weapons program, and press reports have put it at "several hundred" weapons, the C-SPAN host might have asked the caller what countries, if any (there are none) Israel has threatened with annihilation the way Iran has threatened it. The host might also have asked why the caller alleges that the United States "gave Israel 400 nuclear devices" when Israel's Dimona reactor was supplied by France and subsequent Israeli nuclear research appears to have been conducted by Israel itself.

Likewise the claim about "the most advanced bunker-busting bombs"  news reports say Washington has not decided yet to supply Israel with such weapons. As to "the most advanced F-16's from America," the United States retains the top version of the jet for itself It sells Israel a more sophisticated model than it does to Arab countries. Israel modifies the aircraft with avionics it has developed itself, some of which have been adopted by the United States. But once more, rather than interject relevant, contradictory information, a Washington Journal host allows an anti-Israel caller to make erroneous claims without challenge.

In this segment about the United Nations role, this is the third of five callers singling out mainly Israel for condemnation  all but the first without challenge by host Brawner.

Caller: "Well, the role of the U.N.  I think they are doing a decent job. It is an enormous task what they are undertaking. But I think the bigger problem is our relationship with Israel. We let Israel dictate to us on everything. The Republicans now are whining because Obama will not meet with Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu got 42 percent of the vote in the last election in Israel; 58 percent of the Israelis don' t want him. He's a warmongering thug who wants to get us involved in a war with Iran if we don' t wake up."

Host: "Okay."

NOTE: No explanation is provided to viewers as to the intricacies of Israel's multi-party system in which the vote is for a party slate, not a party leader, or that no individual Israel party ever has won 50 percent or more of the Knesset (parliament) seats. All ruling parties have governed with multi-party coalitions. More seriously, the C-SPAN lets the unsubstantiated slander of Prime Minister Netanyahu as "a warmongering thug" pass without challenge  though he has negotiated agreements with the Palestinian Authority in the past and offered to do so again, and long has pushed for significant economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran just so the military option against the mullahs' illegal nuclear weapons program could be avoided. It's unlikely, of course, that the host's response to a caller labeling President Obama a "warmongering thug" would have been a simple "Okay." But when it comes to Israel, C-SPAN tolerates virtually any smear.

In this segment about the United Nations role, this is the fourth of five callers singling out mainly Israel for condemnation  the later four without challenge by host Brawner.

Caller: "Thanks for taking my call. My comment is almost the same as the previous caller about Benjamin Netanyahu. It looks like the prime minister of Israel is trying pressure the president of the United States. The president himself, Obama, (indistinct) stand up for himself and the country. When asked (indistinct) about Prime Minister Netanyahu (indistinct), he did not deny the pressures. He said that he would block it out when he makes decisions for the United States. That's the wrong answer. I don' t think the prime minister should be pressuring the president of the United States."

Host : "So, caller, what does this mean for the United Nations?"

Caller: "I like the U.N. Any time people come together and talk, I think it' s reasonably good. But it needs to be updated for the new powers and new countries. The Security Council members have a veto. People need to be explained why those five countries and why not other countries (indistinct)."

In this segment about the United Nations role, this is the fifth of five callers singling out mainly Israel for condemnation  the later four without challenge by host Brawner.

Caller: "Thank you very much, C-SPAN and thank you for what you're doing. The U.N. is a very good entity. But the main problem in the U.N. is the relationship between the United States and Israel. Israel is the biggest stone in the shoes of the United States. The Republicans are whining around because the president of the United States is not bowing to Israel. It's what ever they say, United States has to go with it. That's wrong. Iran can do whatever (indistinct). Mitt Romney wants to start another war with Iran. We have to tell that to the American people before they go to vote."

Host: "Alright, Freddie."

Note: The caller claims "Israel is the biggest stone in the shoes of the United States." Why doesn't the Washington Journal host point out the obvious, that Israel is the one pro-Western, pro-U.S. country in a region beset by rising Islamist movements, deadly anti-American protests and attacks, and an Islamic revolutionary regime in Iran that is reportedly driving for nuclear weapons? Why not remind viewers that Iran has been at war with the United States since the Tehran embassy takeover in 1979, through the Iranian-backed bombings of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and the attack on a U.S. military compound in Saudi Arabia in 1996 to the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in a Washington restaurant earlier this year? Why not note that Israel votes (U.S. State Dept. table page 14) with the United States at the United Nations more (92.8 percent in 2011) than any other country but that the rather large stone in the shoe in U.S. diplomacy at Turtle Bay consists of the 21 states of the Arab League and 57 nations in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that often obstruct U.S. efforts and routinely ostracize and vilify Israel at the world body? Why not challenge the claim that "Mitt Romney wants to start another war with Iran"? "Alright, Freddie," is not public affairs journalism; it's C-SPAN giving a soapbox to an ignoramus.

Bob from Sutherland, Virginia is another in the long and steady stream of Washington Journal anti-Israel callers.

Caller: With all the conversation nobody is talking about the taxpayers' rights. I think that they ought to give the aid to the Middle East according to what the taxpayers want. And that would be  instead of when it comes time to pay your taxes you check on there whether you want to donate money to the cause or not. But it shouldn't be a thing where they just take it.

Look, you have hundreds of people call in all the time saying they'll never stop the fighting in the Middle East. In fact we're giving them a job over there. If it wasn't for them fighting against (indistinct) they wouldn't have anything to do. And Israel, look at this, we've got millions of people in this country that are Democrats but now Israel is trying to tell us what to do. Those people over there are trying to elect a Republican. We don't need for Israel for sure. That's what I'm thinking. Thanks.

Guest: Well, I think that we have to keep in mind that as disturbing as this new government is in Egypt we still have very important U.S. interests not only in Egypt but in the broader region. First and foremost we want Egypt to be stable and a reliable ally because we depend on regional stability for oil. That's really something for us in our Middle East policy and we should be very clear about that.

The second thing is  there are properties like the Suez Canal that we depend on for the movement of goods and troops. It [Egypt] shares a border with Israel. We want to keep peace between Israel and Egypt. 

NOTE: "Bob from Sutherland, Virginia," while seemingly advocating American disengagement from the Middle East, is also another in the chain of Washington Journal callers who invariably single out only Israel from among all other nations for condemnation. Journal hosts never inform their millions of viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers) of the advantages to the United States accruing from its close relationship with Israel. In addition to Israel being the United States' closest Middle East ally and only example in the region of a Western-style democracy, this includes benefits from Israel in the form of technology, including for improved unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli radicals. In addition, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend 74 percent of U.S. aid in the United States. This helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. But on C-SPAN's Washington Journal uninformed anti-Israel calls are the norm while pertinent information to the contrary, especially from hosts, is virtually nonexistent.

Caller "Tim from Norfolk" yet again using his transparently fake southern accent, is actually the obsessively anti-Israel polemicist James Morris who has vilified Israel in each of his 61 Washington Journal calls. His most recent call was on Aug. 11, 2012 (8:26 AM) as "Tim from Los Angeles" (using his fake southern accent) (click here to listen). Previous recent calls: July 8, 2012 (allowed to violate C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule) as "Tim from Norfolk, Virginia" (click here to listen),using the familiar transparently fake southern accent; July 4, 2012 as "Don from Monrovia, California" (click here to listen); March 9, 2012 (allowed to violate C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule) as "Tony from Norfolk, Virginia" (using his fake southern accent) (click here to listen); March 5, 2012 as "Tim from Los Angeles" (click here to listen).

Additionally, Morris, who habitually voices support for Iran (whose fanatical Islamist leaders threaten to destroy Israel and are the main sponsor of the terrorist Hezbollah group dedicated to attacking Americans and Israelis) in its conflict with the United States and Israel, is falsely presented as a legitimate analyst by the Iranian state-owned, English-language Press TV in an audio clip (a photo of Morris is included).

Caller Morris: "Thanks for taking my call. I am actually military-Navy here in Norfolk. I have been a long-time registered Republican for years and I just became independent last year. I can't take these neocon Republicans basically pushing all these wars for Israel. Mitt Romney is board with it. Look what he said about the Palestinians. I mean  it's support for Israel that got us attacked on 9/1. Now, Romney's pushing for war against against Iran. I'm not for Obama but at least he's trying to stop that crazy Netanyahu from starting World War III by attacking Iran. These neocon Republicans are all wanting war. And look at Romney in San Diego on Memorial Day, when John McCain was out there  I was watching on C-SPAN  your excellent coverage  and he smiled as John McCain called that patriot (indistinct) a jerk for calling him out on the USS Liberty thing."

Host (terminating): "Thanks for the call from Norfolk, Virginia this morning."

Caller: I have a question. I saw on the Web that HR 4133 was passed by Congress. It's going to change our contributions to Israel from $3 billion a year to roughly $10 billion to $12 billion a year. It hasn't been much publicized. Secondary, the price of gas in the United States is almost $4 per gallon and the public isn't aware that because we have cut off the ability of Iran to sell oil  has reduced the amount of oil there is in the world available to us. Thank you very much.

Guest: I' m not aware of HR 4133. You can go to the Library of Congress Web site to get a report of where that stands. That doesn't sound right to me. An increase in foreign aid from $3 billion to $12 billion  even if it was, that bill that the caller is talking about would be an authorization measure. It would allow for people to spend up to that amount of money. The funding for Israel has been relatively stable over the years at about $3 billion and they actually plan to cut that back  the amount that goes to both Israel and Egypt so that essentially they do not kill each other. You will not see a fourfold increase in Israel's foreign aid right now particularly when we've got all these other crises.

Washington Journal draws another of its countless anti-Israel callers. But this time a) the program's guest firmly rebuts his argument and b) the host doesn't ask the caller to expand his comments. A C-SPAN rarity.

Caller: A couple things. He was right in the fact that he said that he [Bennett] is a right winger, that's for sure [but the program's transcript prior to this point says nothing about anyone being a "right winger" or anything like that]. The other thing is that not only do we not want our country run from Rome, we also do not want it run from Israel. Netanyahu  I find that just almost next to treasonous for anybody to back the prime minister of Israel over our president, along with candidate Romney to come out the very night with a crucial crisis that in the Middle East there, and basically, what do you want to call, obstruct by the  what I want to say  the comments that he made about the way our president was handling the situation.

Guest: Well, I don't want our country run from Israel, it won't be, I don't want our country run from Rome, it won't be, and I don't want it run from Chicago, or something like that style. I'd like it run more in the spirit of Jamesville, Wisconsin, that notion, those places where my friend Paul Ryan is from but also from parts of New York City and other places, where I grew up in Brooklyn.

Look, the debate about foreign policy is about a lot of different things. One thing for sure, Iran is a menace, that if it gets these nuclear weapons, nuclear capability, it has told us it would use them and they have to be stopped. They show not much sign of stopping. Washington Post editorialized the other day, I think they're right, what constitutes crossing the red line for Benjamin Netanyahu and crossing the red line of the United States, we need to agree on what that red line is. If we can't, Israel has a right to defend itself and the interesting question is if it does act, will the United States be behind it? I sure as heck hope so.

Typical of C-SPAN Washington Journal hosts, Casey pays no attention to a caller's conspiracy mongering particularly when Jews or Israelis are defamed. It's as if at Journal, such remarks are considered acceptable or politically correct.

Caller: Mr. [Senator] Grassley, I would have to say that I think the Republicans are back up to their old tricks in this election thing because if my memory serves me well and I firmly believe that when Reagan and Carter were running against each other, that they [Republicans] orchestrated the helicopter attack, the wreckage, you know in the reelection of Carter. I think [Israel's prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney got together and they plotted this whole thing [attacks by Islamists on American diplomatic personnel] (indistinct) and you' re all a bunch of crooks. I hope the Justice department puts you all where you belong.

Host: What do you mean by all'  everyone in Congress?"

Caller: You're right, everybody on the Republican side up there.

Guest: That's the sort of post partisanship I hoped that the president was going to do away with. Did I hear him [caller] right? Was he blaming people [Americans] in the United States for the attack of 9/11?

Guest: That is a conspiracy [theory]. I had a person came to one of my town meetings with great big charts. I bet they were taller than he was and with photographs of the people going into it [World Trade center] and telling me, Can't you look at the smoke coming out of there? There was a conspiracy in this country to make that happen.' Well, we've had all sorts of investigations and we cannot spend our time listening to foolish things like that.

Typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a caller's anti-Jewish or anti-Israel inflammatory, unfounded allegation  this one (It was an American Israeli that did the anti-Muslim film) concerning the online film clip that was supposedly the reason that Islamists in Libya murdered American diplomatic personnel as well as precipitating other anti-Western riots throughout much of the Arab world  is aired without at least mildly challenging the authenticity of the accusation.

As is commonly the case for such allegations promoted by those rarely missing an opportunity to bash Israel (Gregory previously called the Journal defaming Israel on May 20, 2011 at 8:18 AM), this one, which had previously appeared in print and online, turned out to be a falsehood as was subsequently revealed in numerous media reports. The film clip in question was the product basically of an Egyptian Coptic Christian named Nakoula Basserly Nakoula (Sam Basile), an American citizen from California. C-SPAN had yet again dropped the responsible-journalism ball to the detriment of millions of viewers.

Caller: I have to precede my comment with  I am a native American and a descendant of (indistinct) masters (indistinct) of North Carolina. Mr. [Senator] Grassley, listening to you speak, you sound like a politician that is on the verge of losing office. You have been in office for 36 years 

Guest (interrupting): 32 years.

Caller: Well, 32 years, that is a long time, sir. I want to make three quick points Libby, before you push the dial tone, you first talked about the ambassador [to Libya] that was killed yesterday. You did not mention the cause  the film that was created  who created the film  and what was the intention behind the film. It was an American Israeli that did an anti-Muslim film. It's cause and effect. That is what happened. Number 2, Mr. Grassley, you did degrade the president when you described his actions when he went to speak to the Middle East to mend the fences between us and that part of the world. Thirdly, you want to talk about class division, Mr. Grassley, I think all one has to do is look at the recent Democratic national convention and look at the audience and then look at the Republican convention and look at that audience and you tell me where the divide is.

Guest: Well, I' m not going add to division in America because that is what we should all be fighting against. We're all Americans. We shouldn't be hyphenated Americans. You can be proud of your heritage but in America we're all Americans. So, I'm not going to answer that or respond to that. Otherwise, the only thing I could sense in what he [caller] was saying is there was an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish statement in his first comment and I think he should not be dividing. I think it America  I think he was finding fault with the film that was being produced. What does he think the first Amendment [to the U.S. Constitution] is? Freedom of speech! About the only thing is  you cannot yell fire' in a theater. We have free speech. It is a First Amendment right, a Constitutional amendment. I do not think Americans should suffer around the world because we have free speech in this country. I mean, after all, The United Nations is supposed to protect those things, as well.

Caller: "I agree with the other New Yorker very much on everything he said. The only thing that people are not looking at is that under Clinton, he got Arafat and the Israelis together and had a peace  had a big party. There was no terrorizing going on at that point in time. One time that they were killed  the leaders were killed  and Netanyahu came in and took everything off the table. Then they went back to square one. The terrorists have tried to get our attention. I was here in New York City  I saw what was going on and I was not shocked. I knew that something would happen because they did the first time  they did the (indistinct). We have to pay attention. Bill Clinton was the only president that got them to sit down and to make peace and they would left us alone. They see American planes, American bombs, Caterpillar bulldozers knocking down the houses in Palestine. That's all they see  American, American. That is why they hate us. It's not fanaticism. It is the product of a suicide, houses blown up, (indistinct) it on me..."

Host (interrupting): "Anthony, we get your point. Can I get your thoughts on the World Trade Center area today? We' re showing viewers what it looks  with our cameras  this morning. The World Trade site memorial. What do you think of the construction there?"

Caller: "I am very pleased, very pleased that we Americans are all resilience and that we all can come back and honor our dead. I am not happy with what happened on 9/11  I am no different from any other American. But unfortunately there was so much propaganda that we do not understand what the real problem is. Look, Ron Paul does. He says it in a nice, quiet way. He says we have to leave the Iranians alone. They say he's dangerous; he's not dangerous."

Caller: "I keep hearing  we're always talking about a war on terror. Terror is a tactic used by nations against each. You can look at the terror we used during the Second World War against Germany and Japan. There are only two types of war, one is of the righteous against the wicked and the other is the war of the wicked fighting the wicked. If you look at why he attacked us, there were two reasons, one because of our involvement in the Middle East in "Palestine," the other because he [Osama bin Laden] perceived us as a wicked nation. Now, if you look at the morality of this nation now, I would not call us a very righteous nation so we're actually in a war of the wicked fighting the wicked."

Guest: "Your first point I agree with. I don't think you'd hear me saying it's a war on terror. Terror is a tactic. It's a struggle against terrorists, people who kill innocent people indiscriminately to advance some agenda. Now, I completely disagree with your second point, however. I think this is a struggle of the good, as imperfect as we are, against the wicked.. I understand bin Laden and others use various justifications for what they do. I think that is primarily to motivate their troops. If one does not work, they will find another. But it is a political agenda, if you will, to reconstruct the caliphate ultimately and all of that. But I've just got to say, as an elected representative of the people, the most heartening thing to me is the essential goodness of our people. So, I completely disagree with your point. We have our problems, I understand, but the essential goodness of the American people has continued over the last eleven years and if the government can match it, we'll be greatly improved as a country."

On Washington Journal it's virtually always politically correct to accept a caller's (Awad, a self-identified Palestinian-Arab-American) racist anti-Israel, anti-America rant irrationally charging that the United States is responsible for the recent Muslim anger and violence pervading the Middle East.

Caller: The question is  my wife who (indistinct) with the United States government and the United States Senate to forgive Egypt of the $7 billion loan  and in doing so she worked very hard with the government and the Egyptian government. Now, as of today, as of today, we have a new president there in Egypt. And I'm from Palestine; I was born there, but I was raised in this country. I went to school here from an early age. This gives me a more of an opportunity to understand what the Middle East people can understand. I have a question. The question is  even though my wife was a supporter of Anwar Sadat, I was against Anwar Sadat for going to Jerusalem, because that is an occupied country of Palestine. Today we have a problem that will never end and the current situation is the Arab countries have to be united as one because they are all Mediterranean Arabs and Mediterranean Greeks and Mediterranean Italians, and so forth, which is fantastic countries. All of them have great food, great cultures. But we're changing that to a war-mongering, hateful people with religious codes and I'm very leery about the Islamic code because I understand what that is and I do not appreciate it.

Host: Awad, we will stop you on that point. Thank you for calling.

Guest: Well, I think what the caller is getting at is there is a concern that the changes in the Middle East, as a result of uprisings and revolutions (indistinct) are not going to be peaceful and are going to create instability in the region. I do not think that is necessarily a foregone conclusion at all. Certainly, there are reasons to be concerned about what from a perspective of the United States in its foreign policy or from the perspective of Israel, what the rise in Islamic (indistinct) will mean for American foreign policy or Israeli security. But at the same time, it is not a foregone conclusion that this will happen.

As you could see yesterday in Sinai, the Egyptian armed forces undertaking what they call operation Sinai to try to establish some security. It was very good coordination between Egyptian armed forces and Israeli armed forces during this operation. So just because Islamist groups have come to power does not necessarily mean that we will see instability in the region.

Caller: As the other caller said, I'm coming from the same part of the world. Fifty-seven years or more, actually, we supported Israel just like international bully. We have spent millions of dollars over there and we still are supporting a country which they never appreciate what we are doing for them. And they never honored the way we treated. All of them actually could lead us into very peaceful countries have now. So, now we are talking about Iran. Okay? Which I am from Iran, too. It is just a disagreement or conflict between the two, three governments  Iran , Israel, and America. When you say Iran or Iranian, you include people, too.

SCULLY: Thank you John.

Guest: Well, the caller is talking about one of the most difficult foreign policy decisions facing the Obama administration and perhaps the next administration, whether it is President Obama or Governor Romney, and that is the question of the Iranian nuclear challenge. And the Israelis, as the caller rightly points out, have benefited from a significant amount of American aid over many, many years, is concerned, and I think quite rightly, about what an Iranian nuclear weapon would mean for their own security. The debate is obviously about the wisdom of an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities and whether this would deal a blow to the Iranians. Certainly, it would delay it significantly or would greatly accelerate the program, and what would and what would it do to the Iranian regime. This is a debate that is played out in Washington, in Jerusalem In the policy communities around those two countries. I do not think anybody has lost sight of the fact that the Iranians are people as well. They have their own view of their security and in fact if you look at from a purely objective manner, the Iranians have a strategic interest in developing nuclear technology. They feel as if they are surrounded by United States and hostile neighbors 